Dave, For what it is worth, I agree that we've not communicated enough about the development of the final IESG statement. I did respond to one general class of points made about the draft policy, we did consider all input, and we made the changes that we felt were possible and justified by the input. But it would certainly have been good to provide a detailed response to all input and continue the dialogue. My apologies. In my defence I wanted to have a stated policy and a contact person in place for the meeting that was about to start. I do however agree that a strong, full IETF (rough) consensus policy as a BCP would be very desirable. That has in fact been at the back of our heads (but again not communicated well). Remember that we have only made an IESG statement about the topic. I would actually like to make the stronger statement - either as a standalone BCP or as part of 3184bis. I think you'll agree that if there ever was a truly bad situation, such a policy would be better support for action that might be required. I certainly believe that we should pursue such a policy. Jari